Arthur v. Dodge 101 U.S. 34 (1879)

U.S. Supreme Court

Arthur v. Dodge, 101 U.S. 34 (1879)

Arthur v. Dodge

101 U.S. 34

Syllabus

1. Between Aug. 28 and Oct. 18, 1874, A. imported into the port of New York certain articles known as "tin in plates," "terne plates," and "tagger's tin," upon which the collector imposed a duty of fifteen percent ad valorem.Held that under secs. 2503 and 2504 of the Revised Statutes, said articles were dutiable at only ninety percent of that rate.

Between Aug. 28 and Oct. 18, 1874, Dodge and his partners, constituting the firm of Phelps, Dodge, & Co., imported into the port of New York sundry invoices of "tin in plates," "terne plates," and "tagger's tin," whereon Arthur, the then collector, imposed a duty of fifteen percent ad valorem, which the firm paid under protest. The following is a copy of one of their protests, the others being substantially like it:

"SIR -- We do hereby protest against the payment of fifteen percent charged on sixteen hundred and fifty (1650) boxes tin plates of the dutiable value of $14,422, gold, contained in our entry made on the twenty-third day of September, 1874, per S.S. Algeria, from Liverpool, England, in cases marked P. D. & Co., and various other marks, claiming that under existing laws said goods are only liable to a duty of ninety percent of fifteen percent or thirteen and one-half percent, because title 33, sec. 2503, of the codification of the revenue laws provides certain rates of duty on articles which are mentioned in Schedule E of sec. 2504, with the provisions that all articles mentioned in 2503 shall have the benefit of ten percent reduction -- one of the provisions -- on all metals not herein otherwise provided for, and on all manufactures of, &c., &c., includes tin plate, and pay the amount exacted in order to get possession of the goods, and look to you for refund of the same."

The Secretary of the Treasury having, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the collector, the firm brought this suit to recover the difference between the amount paid and ninety percent thereof.

There was a judgment for the plaintiffs. Arthur then sued out this writ of error.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.